>Compare and Contrast

>Compare and contrast this essay from the American Thinker, describing today’s Obama Revolution, with this essay by Garet Garrett, describing the Roosevelt Revolution seventy-five years earlier.

Opening grafs in the AmThinker piece:

During the last 30 years we Americans have been so politically divided that some of us have called this left-right, liberal-conservative split a “culture war” or even a “second Civil War.” These descriptions are no longer accurate. The precise, technical word for what is happening in the United States today is revolution.

Because of our country’s history, we tend to think of revolutions as military conflicts, and of the revolutionaries as the good guys; the image of Minutemen fighting valiantly against the British forces at Lexington and Concord lies deep within our DNA. But sometimes — quite often, actually — revolutions aren’t military conflicts, and the good guys are the ones trying to keep the revolution from happening. In January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by its elected president; he would spend the next two years consolidating his power with the legislative connivance of his political allies in the Reichstag. In October 1917, Lenin and his Bolsheviks took control of Russia from Kerensky and his Social Democrats — who had overthrown the Czar earlier that year — entirely through parliamentary maneuvering in Russia’s fledgling Duma.

What defines a revolution — and this is the crucial point to grasp — is that when it’s over, a country has changed not merely its leaders and its laws, but its operating system…

Opening grafs from the Garrett piece:

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

There are those who have never ceased to say very earnestly, “Something is going to happen to the American form of government if we don’t watch out.” These were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in words. They had forgotten their Aristotle. More than 2,000 years ago he wrote of what can happen within the form, when “one thing takes the place of another, so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about revolution in the state.”

Worse outwitted were those who kept trying to make sense of the New Deal from the point of view of all that was implicit in the American scheme, charging it therefore with contradiction, fallacy, economic ignorance, and general incompetence to govern.

But it could not be so embarrassed, and all that line was wasted, because, in the first place, it never intended to make that kind of sense, and secondly, it took off from nothing that was implicit in the American scheme.

It took off from a revolutionary base. The design was European. Regarded from the point of view of revolutionary technique, it made perfect sense. Its meaning was revolutionary and it had no other. For what it meant to do, it was from the beginning consistent in principle, resourceful, intelligent, masterly in workmanship, and it made not one mistake…Take the time, please, to read both articles in full.

…We are now in the fait accompli of American socialist revolution. Most peoples’ ignorance of history doesn’t allow them to really grasp how rapidly this is happening now, but this wheel is turning like never before…

7 responses to “>Compare and Contrast”

>While an otherwise excellent article, the author’s conclusion is faulty. If the rule of law is being abrogated through revolutionary means, it is already too late for a political solution. Rather than organizing the vote before the blood begins to flow, we need to organize the means of armed resistance as a prelude to a possible political settlement. Negotiate from a position of strength or your enemy will impose his will on you. It is foolish to expect mercy from the heirs of Pol Pot and Che Guevara.MALTHUS

>’some of us have called this left-right, liberal-conservative split a “culture war” or even a “second Civil War.”‘ ‘Some of us’ are wrong. This, like every such split, is nothing more – and nothing less – than the same ol’ same ol’ highly effective control mechanism of thousands of years’ standing.Others of us call it “Divide and Conquer”, although the more accurate translation is “Divide and Rule”.I like to call it “Let’s You and Him Fight”.Your mileage may vary. Think for yourself.

>And the most unfortunate aspect of the entire sordid situation is that the revolution has occured not in spite of the American people, but because they have demanded it. They seek enslavement thinking it is some form of social equalization and justice for the oppressed–terms that reek of Marx and Lenin.

>The American Thinker piece says: “now we can see clearly what’s been happening in the United States during the last three decades. While conservatives have been working to improve our democracy and our free-market economy, liberals have been working to replace our democracy with a dictatorship, and our free-market economy with a command economy controlled by the government.” What a load of bull. BOTH the so called “conservatives” and the damn liberals have been destroying our Republic (it is not a democracy) and replacing it with a dictatorship for decades. Was this guy asleep for the past eight years? Apparently so. So, he used to work for the CIA? Figures.He’s right about what the Obamabots are doing, but he is blind, or willfully concealing the fact that the GOP did exactly the same thing, and is still doing it. The “revolution” to replace the Republic with a dictatorship is a bi-partisan assault. Yes, there are still real conservatives, especially out in fly over country. But they don’t wind up in Washington DC(except for Ron Paul). It is the fakes and phonies who go to Washington to join in on the gang rape of lady liberty. Just one example is NY Republican King, who wants to give Holder absolute discretion to strip any of us of our ability to purchase firearms. Gee, what a defender of our rights. This guy is a joke. And for pete’s sake, someone please inform him that this is not a friggin democracy! Geez

>When a person believes in nothing, it has been said, that person will be willing to believe in anything.Likewise, I think, when you remove the rule of law, you can make any law you want.It’s clear that Obama has succeeded in destroying our concept of contract law which is clearly stated in the Constitution. In so doing, and by his intention of appointing judges with “empathy”, he is clearly destroying the rule of law in this country, and in doing so, undermines the foundation for our wealth and security.If he succeeds – and I find it hard to believe that there won’t be court challenges – then it will never again be “what the law says” with equal justice under the law for all, it will be who you are and who you know that counts. Just like in any third world banana republic.Obama is to be congratulated. He has succeeded in bringing America to its knees – a job that Hitler, Japan and the USSR failed to do.

>There are (at least) FOUR sides, not two.First, there are the obvious two: right and left, conservative and liberal, red and blue, black and white, haves and have-nots, shirts and skins… whatever.Next, there is that side which defined the first two and set them at each other.Finally there is that side which sees the other three.Which side are you on?

>HPL:GOP != ConservativeI don’t know why you and others assume that. If you had said “the GOP has been just as bad in destroying freedom in this country as the Democrats”, I’d totally agree.”GOP” or “Republican” does not equal “Conservative”